The Equality Tribunal
Equal Status Acts 2000-2012
Decision DEC-S2013-002
Parties
Mr. Pierce Parker
v.
Ms. Dorothy Kealy
File Reference: ES/2011/0101
Date of Issue: 16th May 2013
Key words
Equal Status Act, 2000 - 2012, Direct discrimination, Section 3(1) - less favourable treatment, Section 3(2)(a) and (h) - gender and race, , Section 6(1) - discrimination in relation to the provision of accommodation, prima facie case.
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2012
The complainant referred a complaint to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts on the 12th of July 2011. On the 7th January 2013, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, and under the Equal Status Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. A submission was received from the complainant on the 30th December 2011 and from the respondent on the 13th February 2012. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on the on the 22nd February 2013.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by the complainant that he was discriminated against on the gender and race grounds in relation to access to a service in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status and contrary to Section 6(1) of that Act in that the respondent did not rent him a room in a house.
2 Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainant is of Asian /American nationality and is a postgraduate student. He was seeking accommodation for the Summer of 2011 and he saw an advertisement on the window of a house adjacent to the University. The advertisement stated that there were 3 rooms to let in the house. On the 15th of May 2011 he made an appointment to meet the respondent at the house. He said that he arrived early and was admitted to the house by one of the tenants. After meeting the respondent and viewing the house he made an agreement to take it and said that he would move in the following weekend following the payment of the rent and a deposit In response to a text from him later that evening the respondent texted to say that there was a delay in confirming the availability of the room. The following morning he received a text from the respondent to say that she was sorry but all the rooms were taken by the people who were already in the house. The complainant said that he was upset about this and he believed that the respondent gave preferential treatment to other people who came after him. He said that from past experiences he believed that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race.
2.2 The complainant then approached the President of the Post Graduate Student Association complaining about discrimination. He asked him to send another student to the premises to see if the room was still available. He learned later from the student association that another student telephoned the respondent and it was confirmed to him that the rooms were still available. This student made an appointment to view the house. The complainant said that he also passed the house and the notice was still on the house stating that there were 3 rooms available for renting. The complainant submits that these events confirmed his suspicion that the respondent did not want to let a room to him because of his nationality. He then asked the President of the Post Graduate Association to take up the matter with the respondent. The complainant understands that there was no response from the respondent. He notified the respondent of his complaint under the Equal Status Acts on the 27th of May 2011 and he referred a complaint of discrimination on the race ground to the Tribunal on the 12th July 2011.
3 Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated on the race ground. She said that she owns a 5 bedroom house near the University and every year since her own children finished college she lets the house to undergraduate students for the academic year September to May. From May to September she would usually lets it to students either doing post graduate studies or people who worked on campus and who wanted it on a short term basis. She usually puts an advertisement in the bedroom window and it is usually left up even long after the house is fully let. She said that she has a lot of repeat lettings to the same students and that she has let it to students of different nationalities from all over the world.
3.2 In May 2011, three female students had taken the house but there were still 2 rooms vacant. She got a telephone call from the complainant on the 15th of May 2011 and she arranged to meet him at the house. He was there when she arrived and he wanted to pay a deposit and take the one of the vacant rooms immediately. She explained to the complainant that there were 3 students already in the house and that she would have to check with them first to see if they wished to bring in any friends before she could confirm the letting of the room to him. She said that she usually likes to give first preference on letting to the friends of students already in the house as happened in this case. The respondent said that she told the complainant that she would email the contract and bank details to him and confirm if the letting was going ahead. She would also text him first to let him know. She said that she spoke to the 3 students in the house and they were confident that they could fill the vacant positions in the house with their friends. She texted the complainant the following morning and told him that the room was not available. She said that she got a call from another person asking if the house was available and seeking to view the house. She made arrangements to meet him there but he failed to turn up. She said that she was going away for a few days' holidays. She said that she then she got a call from the postgraduate student association and she was informed that the complainant was making allegations of racial discrimination because she did not let the house to him. She said that she explained to him that there were female students already in the house and that they had told her that they were confident that they could fill the vacancies in the house with their friends. She said that she was very upset by the accusation that she was discriminating against the complainant. The women tenants in the house informed her some time after her return from holidays that their friends had rented elsewhere. The respondent decided that she would not rent these rooms that summer. She said that her main aim was to fill all the vacancies in the house and if the people in the house failed to fill the vacancies they had no say in who got the rooms.
4. Conclusion of Equality Officer
4.1 The matter referred for investigation turns upon whether or not the complainant was discriminated against contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 6(1) of that Act. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint.
Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:
"On any of the grounds specified... (in this case the race ground).... A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(1) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds ... are ...
(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the ''ground of race''),"
and Section 6. -- (1) provides: "A person shall not discriminate in --
(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,
(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, OR
(c) providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities."
The burden of proof is set out in Section 38A which provides:
38A. -- (1)" Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary."
4.2 A person making an allegation of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. This requires the complainant to establish facts from which it can be presumed that he was discriminated against because of his nationality. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established by the complainant, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.
The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his race as set out at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 above. The respondent denies the allegations of discrimination.
4.3 I am satisfied that the complainant is covered by the Equal Status Acts. The next matter for consideration is whether he was discriminated against in relation to access to accommodation contrary to Section 6(1). There is a conflict of evidence between the complainant and the respondent in relation to whether the respondent agreed to let the room to the complainant on the day he viewed it. On balance, I am not satisfied that there was a concluded agreement between them in relation to the complainant becoming a tenant in the house; it was subject to clarification with the tenants already there. I note from the respondent's evidence that she considered the female students in the house as anchor tenants and therefore it was preferable that any new tenants were compatible. She submitted for that reason she usually gives the tenants in situ an opportunity to enquire from their friends if they wish to rent before letting to a prospective tenant. In this case this is what happened. I am satisfied that the respondent has had nationalities from all over the world as tenants in the house. While it may not be good practice and somewhat misleading to people looking for accommodation to leave a sign for vacancies in the window and to show prospective tenants the house before checking with the tenants in situ about the availability of the rooms, but it is not discriminatory treatment. There is no evidence that the respondent let the room to a person of a different nationality after the complainant viewed it. The respondent in evidence stated that she did not let the other rooms in the house for the remainder of the Summer and this evidence was not disputed by the complainant. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish he was treated less favourably than another person was treated in similar circumstances. I find therefore that the complainants have not adduced any facts from which discrimination can be inferred. Likewise I find the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the race ground.
5. Decision
5.1 I find that the complainant was not discriminated against on the race ground contrary to Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Acts.
__________________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
16th May 2013